Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists

David, Yael Barel-Ben; Garty, Erez S.; Baram‐Tsabari, Ayelet

doi:10.1101/760520

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For communicators in the throes of a crisis, it is critical to convey factual, precise information that will also engage the general public. Under normal circumstances, communicating with technical, idiosyncratic words, or jargon, is viewed negatively by audiences [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. In particular, research in science communication and beyond has found that the presence of jargon damages persuasive efforts [9] and can have a disengaging effect on audiences [4][5][6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A popular refrain in science communication is to avoid scientific language, otherwise known as jargon, when communicating with the general public [ 1 – 3 ]. Indeed, an abundance of research has revealed that the presence of jargon is alienating [ 4 ], undermines comprehension [ 5 ], reduces engagement [ 6 , 7 ], and creates a barrier to entry in certain fields (e.g., STEM) [ 6 , 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Don’t dumb it down: The effects of jargon in COVID-19 crisis communication

Shulman

Bullock

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experts are typically advised to avoid jargon when communicating with the general public, but previous research has not established whether avoiding jargon is necessary in a crisis. Using the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as a backdrop, this online survey experiment (N = 393) examined the effect of jargon use across three different topics that varied in situational urgency: COVID-19 (high urgency), flood risk (low urgency), and federal emergency policy (control). Results revealed that although the use of jargon led to more difficult processing and reduced persuasion for the two less-urgent topics (flood risk, emergency policy), there was no effect of jargon in the COVID-19 condition. Theoretically, these findings suggest that the motivation to process information is an important moderator for crisis communication in particular and science communication in general. Practically, these findings suggest that science communicators, during times of crisis, do not need to "dumb down" their language in the same way they should during non-crises.

show abstract